A federal appeals court in the United States has rejected President Donald Trump's administration's request to implement an executive order that provides for stricter rules for voting by mail in 23 states, ahead of the midterm elections to be held in November.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, in a 2-1 decision, upheld previous federal court orders, blocking some parts of the presidential order. On June 25, federal Judge Indira Talwani ruled that some of the proposed measures were unconstitutional.

The US Department of Justice appealed that decision, arguing that challenging the order was premature, as federal agencies had not yet completed the process of implementing it. However, the appeals court rejected this argument. The reasoning for the decision states that the presidential order set clear and imminent deadlines, forcing states to coordinate actions with federal authorities and change electoral procedures before the election, so their reaction was necessary.

The Trump administration has warned that if the ruling is not reversed, the case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. President Trump signed the executive order in March, continuing his efforts to impose stronger controls on mail-in voting. He has repeatedly claimed, without providing evidence admissible in the courts, that the 2020 presidential election was affected by voter fraud.

Under the order, the Department of Homeland Security would have to compile lists of eligible voters based on federal citizenship data, while the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) would only deliver ballots to people who appeared on lists approved by states.

The president had also instructed the Justice Department to prioritize the prosecution of state and local election officials who allow people deemed ineligible to vote.

Judge Talwani ruled that the president has no constitutional authority to compel the Department of Homeland Security to compile such voter lists or to impose binding rules on the USPS regarding the administration of mail-in voting. She added that the order risked putting undue pressure on local election officials through the threat of criminal prosecution.

The case is expected to continue in federal courts and could end up for review in the Supreme Court, while the debate over voting rules remains one of the most sensitive political topics in the US ahead of the November elections.